<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2016 (9) TMI 311 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=332050</link>
    <description>Under section 5(2) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963, first-sale treatment for branded goods applies only where the sale is by the brand name holder or trade mark holder within the State. On the facts, cement was manufactured by one entity and marketed by the assessee under the ACC brand, but the arrangement did not show that the manufacturer was itself the brand name holder or trade mark holder for section 5(2). The assessee&#039;s claim to first-sale status therefore failed. The SC also declined to reconsider the earlier interpretation of section 5(2), treating it as binding precedent with no sufficient basis for reference to a larger Bench.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 28 Jul 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 29 Mar 2017 12:10:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=440526" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (9) TMI 311 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=332050</link>
      <description>Under section 5(2) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963, first-sale treatment for branded goods applies only where the sale is by the brand name holder or trade mark holder within the State. On the facts, cement was manufactured by one entity and marketed by the assessee under the ACC brand, but the arrangement did not show that the manufacturer was itself the brand name holder or trade mark holder for section 5(2). The assessee&#039;s claim to first-sale status therefore failed. The SC also declined to reconsider the earlier interpretation of section 5(2), treating it as binding precedent with no sufficient basis for reference to a larger Bench.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 28 Jul 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=332050</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>